Bill, you raised a lot of good points. It will take me a while to think through all of them. With this one, I couldn't agree more. I feel that the need to apply grain to perfect, digital photos, or the trend for adding fake film, or handcoated paper borders, simulation of classic lens aberrations (having just corrected for the new ones) just for the sake of looking antique, polaroid-like framing, toy-shop over-saturation, or even a heavy hand with the all-present vignette—they are all distractions on the way to finding a new expression, that I am sure digital can offer. Those techniques can work in digital, and have a purpose, but I rarely see either.
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
Most of the time, I feel that those analogue metaphors serve just the purpose of making digital feel more acceptable, warmer to the soul that respects that to err is human. I am concerned, that unadulterated digital might be too cold, and rather brutal with its truth, and for most people, that may be hard to accept. The best of the newest genre, that I see, is very good, but not likable. If film were like that, I am sure we would have tried to soften it more often, but perhaps we just got lucky.